Why do we care about how 3D movies are made?
Because movies that are shot in 3D from the beginning can look pretty good. Beyond the obvious example of Avatar, I would argue that the TRON remake was a gorgeous (if somewhat empty) 3D film, using 3D only in the computer world and keeping the “real” world in 2D.
I also thought the new Transformers movie looked great in 3D, even if it ran way too long.
But Thor looked absolutely terrible in 3D; it was dim and blurry on the edges if you weren’t sitting in the center of the theater. And unlike those previous three examples, it was a 3D conversion. Which is why I’m going to hold off seeing Captain America this weekend because the only screening I could get to would be a 3D one, and reports I’m seeing say that the Cap’n America 3D conversion is every bit as bad as the one for Thor. On the other hand, I can’t wait to see what Ridley Scott will do with his shot-in-3D Alien prequel Prometheus.
As a side note, noted movie critic Roger Ebert absolutely despises 3D movies of almost every sort. He’s presented his own thoughts on it and supported them with the views of respected people from the industry.
How do you feel about 3D movies? Will you skip seeing one because it’s in 3D? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
UPDATE: October 2014 - Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity was largely a conversion, but it had been planned and shot as a 3D movie from the very beginning. I’ve come to believe that it’s planning and cinematography that matter more than the actual technique used to create the 3D effects.